From my studies of the English Civil War I know that parliament wasn't exactly representative of anywhere. I'd say that the Americans were, however, better represented than, say, the Irish, since parliament was overtly Puritan.
At least that's what I think I recall - or had Laudians gained control over parliament at this point?

@nestalgic:Well that's also partly incorrect. The largest portion of the US budget does not go to the military. It goes to entitlements. The largest portion of discretionary spending goes to the military though. That might have been what you were referring to. But then again, even if we cut the Pentagon budget to $0, we'd still be in a hole right now.

that is iffy. in 2012, counting in all of the defense contracts and personnel pay and benefits, military spending amounted to 24% of the federal budget. healthcare and welfare spending account for 22% and 12% of the budget, respectively.

tbh, i don't care for the buzz word 'entitlement', as it implies something that has not been earned and is therefore not deserved. a society that does not believe decent, basic healthcare is deserved by its citizens in severely lacking in common sense at the least.

Point taken, but then again, the Pentagon budget contains a lot more than military spending. And, of course, Bush had the two wars excluded from the Pentagon budget for 5 years — meaning they weren't even technically military spending.

That's such a twisted story. The colonists refused taxation because the British Empire refused to provide any parliamentary seats outside of England. Thus the whole "no taxation without representation" mantra that led to the rebellion.

Right. I am perfectly well aware of our version. I obviously know about "no taxation without representation." I am simply interested in the other side of the story. For example, I'm sure Britain felt that they were represented adequately.

The revolution was the result of a hundred different differences between the colonists and England. The Quartering Act, Townshed Acts, Stamp Act, Declaratory Act and dozens of other political missteps led to an environment that was ripe for revolution. It was much, much more complicated than "England did everything they could to help us and we were just being unreasonable".

I know about all the Acts. I just didn't feel like going into it.

They excluded everyone. The Scottish weren't (and still aren't) represented in British Parliament. They have their own Parliament to this day. That's how the British did business. The colonial aristocracy didn't want to play that game. And of course the British had hard feelings — otherwise they wouldn't have sent privateers against US ships and naval interests leading to the War of 1812.

That's such a twisted story. The colonists refused taxation because the British Empire refused to provide any parliamentary seats outside of England. Thus the whole "no taxation without representation" mantra that led to the rebellion.

Right. I am perfectly well aware of our version. I obviously know about "no taxation without representation." I am simply interested in the other side of the story. For example, I'm sure Britain felt that they were represented adequately.

The revolution was the result of a hundred different differences between the colonists and England. The Quartering Act, Townshed Acts, Stamp Act, Declaratory Act and dozens of other political missteps led to an environment that was ripe for revolution. It was much, much more complicated than "England did everything they could to help us and we were just being unreasonable".

I know about all the Acts. I just didn't feel like going into it.

They excluded everyone. The Scottish weren't (and still aren't) represented in British Parliament. They have their own Parliament to this day. That's how the British did business. The colonial aristocracy didn't want to play that game. And of course the British had hard feelings — otherwise they wouldn't have sent privateers against US ships and naval interests leading to the War of 1812.

Wut? The Scottish are represented in the British parliament. Scotland's population is around 5 million, around 8% of the UK population. They elect 59 MPs for Westminster - 9% of the total MPs. So if anything they are overrepresented in UK parliament!

They elect UK MPs in addition to having their own parliament - in fact it can be argued that their power in the UK as a whole is unjust, since they make a great deal of their decisions in Scotland (for example, Scotland has no tuition fees) - why should they also have some control over the rest of the UK?

@bonham2 (post 13) - Like I said in my previous response, it would be impossible to gauge how modern British people (both common and scholarly) would view American Revolution-era figures without determining to what extent the past ~250 years of history would've changed had America lost the war. I could throw out over different guesses if I had enough time/motivation to do so, but each one would be only that: a guess. If you've ever seen/read anything where an event, either major or minor, changes and all the resulting differences that result, imagine that, then add 250 years worth of changes together. You'd see how impossible your request is.